Grant v. Pollard

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/30/2014 DENYING 9 Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to James Grant at Waupun Correctional Institution, Dane County Circuit Court) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES EDWARD GRANT,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 14-C-1005

WILLIAM POLLARD,
Warden, Waupun Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se Petitioner James Edward Grant (“Grant”) filed a motion
seeking reconsideration of the Court’s September 12, 2014, Decision and
Order denying his request for leave in forma pauperis on a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissing the
action as frivolous. (ECF No. 7.) Judgment was entered on September 12,
2014. (ECF No. 8.) The Court held that Grant’s petition is legally frivolous
because the conviction it purports to challenge is not verified by state
records, the purported grounds were not presented to the state court, and
the stated grounds do not raise arguable constitutional claims.
Grant has submitted documents that substantiate that he was the
defendant in Dane County Circuit Court Case Number 10CF1896 (ECF
Nos. 9-11), even though the Court could not locate a case number

10CF0896 or 10CF1896 associated with Grant on the Wisconsin Circuit
Court Access System. Indeed, if Grant’s name is typed in, there is no case
number

against

him

with

the

initial

digits

“10.”

See

http://offender.doc.state.wi.us (last visited September 2, 2014.) The Court’s
staff will send a copy of this Decision and Order to the Dane County Circuit
Court so they can resolve the problem.
However, as of today, it is possible to bring up the case 10CF1896
against Grant by typing in the number. Based on the foregoing, the Court
corrects its prior decision to indicate that such a case number against
Grant exists, and to amend the statement in the first full paragraph of
page four as follows:
Grant’s petition is legally frivolous because the conviction
it purports to challenge is not verified by state records, the
purported grounds were not presented to the state court,
and the stated grounds do not raise arguable constitutional
claims. Therefore, Grant’s petition is dismissed.1
Despite such amendment, Grant’s petition remains legally frivolous
because the purported grounds were not presented to the state court, and
the stated grounds do not raise arguable constitutional claims. Filed less
than 28 days from the entry of judgment, his motion is a Rule 59(e) motion.
1

The records of the DOC and state circuit court indicate that Grant is currently in custody
for state court convictions in case numbers 12CM1754 for retail theft and disorderly conduct, and
12CM2488 for retail theft. He pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced on October 17, 2012.
He appealed and that appeal is pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

-2-

Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the
petitioner can establish a manifest error of law or can present newly
discovered evidence. Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chi. 759 F.3d 645,
652-53 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Because Grant has not
established a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence, his
motion for relief from judgment is denied. And the Court continues to
decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The September 12, 2014, Decision and Order is amended to reflect
that there is a Dane County Circuit Court Case Number 10CF1896
against Grant; and
Grant’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-